Pages

Thursday, July 31, 2014

One of the most reprehensible figures of the West Indies in the French Revolutionary Wars was Victor Hugues. A native of Marseille, his family moved to Santo Domingo but fled back to France because of the Haitian Revolt. Victor Hugues got in good with the Jacobin Club, was appointed to the Committee of Public Salvation in La Rochelle and finally in 1794 was sent to be governor of the island of Guadeloupe with orders to carry out the abolition of slavery passed by the revolutionary regime. This was, not surprisingly, opposed by the planter class and they, along with any other French royalists, quickly allied themselves with the British in trying to hold back the forces of the revolution. The British, as soon as war broke out with France, was intent on seizing control of as much of the West Indies as possible and not simply because of an effort at a land-grab. French revolutionary forces in the region enlisted privateers to prey on British shipping and in 1795 King Carlos IV of Spain was pressured into an alliance with the First French Republic, making almost every part of the West Indies a real or potential threat to British security in the region. Throughout the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, British forces undertook a number of operations in and around the West Indies which often started out as brilliant successes but proved extremely costly due to the prevalence of disease in the islands.

First Earl Grey

As part of a wider operation against other islands in the neighborhood, British forces under the overall command of General Charles Grey landed on Guadeloupe in April of 1794 and joined in cooperation with the French royalists there. This was in fulfillment of the terms of the Whitehall Accord signed by the British and the French royalists representing Guadeloupe, Martinique and Saint-Domingue by which the French royalists offered financial support in exchange for British military protection against the revolutionaries. Backed up by Royal Navy forces led by Admiral Sir John Jervis, the British made short work of the local defending forces and within a matter of days had the island under their control. With most local matters left in the hands of the royalist French planters, life returned to what it had been before the outbreak of the revolution. However, little more than a month later, a French fleet arrived with Victor Hugues and a relatively small number of French troops. While the British army was being decimated by yellow fever, Hugues rallied local republicans and a large force of Blacks and mulattos attracted by his proclamation of the abolition of slavery. These reinforced the 1,500 French troops he had brought with him and while his forces grew stronger, those of the British and French royalists grew only weaker due to the ravages of disease.

Today, Victor Hugues is most remembered for his carrying out of the abolition of slavery in accordance with the order of the National Convention, however, the image of the liberating revolutionary opposing the wicked slave-holding royalists backed up by Britain is an extremely misleading one. Hugues, it should not be forgotten, was typical of the Jacobins he aligned himself with. These were people who espoused lofty, liberal sentiments but who used the most brutal and barbaric methods to push forward their cause. These were the people who instituted the Reign of Terror in France and Hugues had no hesitation in using the same methods on Guadeloupe. Similarly, his abolition of slavery was not the great liberation most people think. In typical Jacobin fashion, it ultimately proved to be a mere matter of rhetoric that bore no relation to actual reality. In fact, slavery was not abolished by the revolutionaries at all but simply renamed. The end result was that, while no one was technically a slave, the supposedly liberated people were still subject to forced labor as the governor saw fit to employ and he employed a great deal of it in the pursuit of his goal to crush the royalists and drive the British from the island. For the Black residents of Guadeloupe, nothing fundamentally changed other than that, instead of being forced to work without pay for the benefit of private owners, they were forced to work without pay for the benefit of the revolutionary government.

Hugues' proclamation ending slavery

However, thanks more to rampant disease than any brilliance on the part of the opposition, Hugues was ultimately victorious over the British. The force at Barville was obliged to surrender which included about 800 French royalist émigrés and 900 Black soldiers. Once again, though it is not often talked about, the true character of the French Revolution and its supporters was on full display when, after the surrender, Hugues carried out a horrific bloodbath, massacring 865 French royalists as well as some of the other prisoners. Sadly, such brutality was not unique to Guadeloupe. Whereas most people know about the horrific cruelty of the French Revolution in France with the September Massacres, the butchery in western France, the regicide and so on, few remember that the same sort of things happened on a smaller scale in the French colonies and they were no less brutal and, at times, even more so. The true legacy of the French Revolution, in the West Indies as elsewhere, was not “liberty, equality and fraternity” but rather the delusion that all injustice can be remedied by mass executions and that if one claims a lofty-enough sounding ideal, the most vile and despicable depths of cruelty and brutality can be justified. In rejecting the revolution and embracing monarchy, this mentality is also rejected; the idea that perfection in this life can be achieved by means of human extermination.

As for Guadeloupe, while the British did send reinforcements to the West Indies for a new offensive led by the talented General Sir Ralph Abercromby, that island was never retaken and it became a paradise for pirates and smugglers throughout the period in question. Eventually, Napoleon Bonaparte sent troops to bring the island under his control and during the subsequent occupation about 10,000 inhabitants were killed. In 1810 the British did return and retake the island, holding it until 1816. During that time, from 1813, it was under the nominal jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Sweden before being ceded back to France in 1814. Slavery returned with the troops sent by Napoleon and was not actually abolished for good until 1848 through the efforts of Victor Schoelcher. In 1946 Guadeloupe became an overseas department of France which it has remained ever since.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Jamaica recently saw the passing of one of its most prominent national leaders in the person of former Governor-General Sir Howard Cooke. He was born Howard Felix Hanlan Cooke on November 13, 1915 to David Brown Cooke and Mary Jane Minto in Goodwill, St. James. After a normal private school education he attended Mico College and London University. He distinguished himself as a student and decided to focus on a career in education. Concern for the proper formation of young people was an interest of his throughout his life. For twenty-three years he worked as a teacher, starting in his alma mater of Mico College and Practising School, later being given the position of headmaster at Belle Castle All-Age School, Port Antonio Upper School and finally Montego Bay Boys’ School. He was a member and served a term as president of the Jamaica Union of Teachers. To supplement this, Cooke also worked in the insurance business, gaining the positions of Senior Inspector and Branch Manager at Standard Life Insurance Company; Unit Manager at Jamaica Mutual Life and Branch Manager of the American Life Insurance Company. Finally, however, he felt the call to enter the public sphere and become active in politics.

The political career of Howard Cooke would no doubt seem strange to some as it did not fit with his later reputation as a staunch royalist but in Jamaica it was not seen as so unusual. He got into politics in 1938 and co-founded the People’s National Party, the oldest party in the English-speaking Caribbean. A social democrat party, part of the Socialist International, it has remained one of the two most prominent parties in Jamaican politics which is dominated by the left. The main rival of the PNP has long been the Jamaica Labour Party and it is generally viewed as being the more leftist of the two. However, after a particularly an electoral defeat at the hands of Labour, and a subsequent downturn in the economy, the PNP came back to power with a noticeable shift toward the center and away from the extreme left to the point that some have come to describe it as a “third position” party, neither right nor left though any mention of “third position” or “third way” will doubtless unnerve some people. Cooke served as chairman of the party and consistently held high leadership positions.

One year after entering the political arena, Cooke married Ivy Sylvia Lucille Tai on July 22, 1939, starting a long and successful marriage that produced two sons and one daughter. A measure of political success finally arrived for Cooke in 1958 when he was elected to the West Indies Federal Parliament, representing his native St. James. In 1962 he entered the Jamaican Parliament as a Senator, serving until 1967 when he moved to the House of Representatives until 1980. During that time, he served in the government of Michael Manley as Minister of Pension and Social Security, Minister of Education and Minister of Labour and Public Service. From 1989 to 1991 Cooke served as President of the Senate and he was the Executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In 1991 he was appointed Governor-General of Jamaica by HM Queen Elizabeth II, serving until 2006, receiving numerous awards and more than one order of knighthood. Outside of the realm of politics and policy, he displayed a greater inclination toward the traditional, emphasizing the monarchy and the place of the Crown in Jamaican life as well as working to preserve and promote Jamaican culture.

Sir Howard Cooke was a longtime member of the Freemasons and a lay pastor of the United Church of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands. One of his special concerns, as mentioned earlier, was the youth and he was always most proud of the title of “teacher”. He was a longtime supporter of the St. Andrew Boys’ Scout Association, enjoyed cricket and football and build numerous community centers in his hometown to improve the welfare of children, to keep them from taking self-destructive paths in life. He was a key figure in the political development of Jamaica, extremely influential in the educational sphere and proved to be such a respected and adept Governor-General that he was actually entrusted with additional duties and responsibilities that most others in viceregal positions would never have because he was held in such high regard by all parties.

Of course, coming from a political background, it cannot escape mention that the sort of politics he favored has had some negative effects, probably unintended by someone like Sir Howard Cooke. Most significantly for our purposes is that the People’s National Party, which he co-founded, was the party which produced the Prime Ministers Percival Patterson and Portia Simpson-Miller who are the only Jamaican heads of government to officially endorse republicanism and call for abolishing the monarchy, replacing the Queen with an elected head-of-state. So far, that campaign has not been successful and hopefully it never will. Sir Howard Cooke did no such thing of course, but policies and ideologies have an effect on the public mentality and the ideology of democratic socialism contains an inherent seed of republicanism. The effect has been that, even while the party has moved away from its more stridently socialist position, which it had in the days of Cooke, it has brought forward political leaders who espouse republicanism, who have rolled back the former staunch opposition to the homosexual agenda and who still have no problem serving in the Socialist International of which Simpson-Miller was elected Vice President in 2013.

Sir Howard Cooke could be thankful these changes came after he had left the political scene and, it should be pointed out, once he did so, firmly embraced the idea of political impartiality in his role as Governor-General. His ability to stand apart from politics, to be totally impartial and bi-partisan no doubt contributed to his status as such a widely respected figure across the Jamaican political spectrum. Sir Howard Cooke died on July 11, 2014 at the age of 98 in Kingston.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

If anyone is inclined to wonder why a pan-monarchist, such as myself, tends to get rather irate on the issue of defending the existing monarchies of the world, even those that might be (gasp) less than entirely perfect, I present the following illustration to explain: (no, not every last speck may be correct -this was done by myself and not a professional cartographer but I think it gets the point across)

Monday, July 28, 2014

It’s going to be another “theme week” this time and if that is not satisfactory, it probably wouldn’t be happening if it were not already done. I was feeling more generous than I probably should have been and already had it done and don’t wish to see anything go to waste. So, this week will go ahead as usual for the most part, I just probably won’t be as “social”. Once done, however, things will be changing as your resident mad man is going on strike. Or, call it a hiatus, a vacation, a reassessment of priorities, Johnny Paycheck moment, as you please. The point is, I will not be posting as usual but taking a little break. Or, it may be a long break, it may be an indefinite break. I’ll have to see how it goes. Of course, if I decide to give it up and devote myself entirely to being a madman of leisure, I will, of course, say so but, if not that, I would expect to be posting considerably less frequently. From my perspective, it has felt like I’m getting more frustration than satisfaction from doing this, increasingly so lately, and while I cannot complain about the numbers, I can complain about the complaints because that is 90-95% of what I hear. I am also not at all in the same sort of situation I was in when I first started to “get involved” and promote monarchy in a public way.

In short, it has become increasingly more difficult for me to answer the question, when I get some static from some person or people, “why do I bother?” And, more and more lately I’m asking myself that and telling myself, “I don’t need this”, “I don’t have to put up with this” and realizing that I don’t. I really don’t. One of my ideas of personal happiness is not having to deal with unpleasant situations or unpleasant people and I have reached the point where I am able to achieve that more than ever before. I am the king of my particular hill, arranged to suit my oddities and I don’t have to deal with anyone I don’t want to deal with. It probably doesn’t hurt that the only outsiders I do have to deal with occasionally are people like hunters or energy company reps who are ready to totally agree with anything I say, to say or do anything to keep themselves in my good graces. Perhaps I have been spoiled but while I have never been much bothered by dealing with republicans (who are almost pathetically amusing most of the time) it is the “friendly fire” that is most annoying to me. If people want to gripe or complain about me or what I do, that doesn’t really bother me but doing it on my e-property does bother me. The way I see it, it’s like a guest coming into your home and insulting you.

There is also the fact, which I have mentioned before, that I am not a mind-reader and I can only go by what people tell me. I don’t know what most people think because most do not speak up and for those that do, the negative tends to drastically outweigh the positive. As I said on Twitter recently, I generally have a little over 3,000 readers a day and yet, going by just what those who speak up say, roughly 98% invariably have some sort of problem with I what I do or say. And so, again, I find myself saying, I don’t have to put up with this. There is also the long-standing irritant of people who think they have any business telling me, on my own e-space, what I can or cannot talk about. It becomes very tiresome, knowing as soon as you hit the post button, that someone is going to complain about it. Then there’s those who want to pick at every little thing concerning constitutional monarchs who have little to no freedom to act at all but are willing to give make every excuse for absolute monarchs who could act differently but choose not to. There is also the whole, “I’m a monarchist but,” crowd or those who are constantly asking just how far loyalty has to go, as if their primary goal is to find some justification to be disloyal rather than …oh well, don’t get me started. But, who cares anyway? I’m probably rattling on here to no purpose. It’s been cumulative and I’m just fed up at the moment. So, the bottom line is that I will be posting what I already have finished for this week and after that will be on hiatus and see how that goes.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Emperor Francis I: The reign of Francis I was one in which he would be overshadowed by his wife and by a Bavarian rival for the imperial throne. When Charles VI died his daughter Maria Theresa succeeded him in his hereditary positions (Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary etc) but it was uncertain what would be the place of her husband, Francis Stephen of Lorraine. He had practically been raised to be the husband of Maria Theresa (his brother was the original choice but died) and he did his part to gain friends and fortune for the Hapsburgs, gaining the favor of British elites by joining the Freemasons and challenging France over the Polish succession by which he traded Lorraine for Tuscany in Italy. When his father-in-law died, the Bavarian Charles VII was elected Emperor but quickly lost most of his territory to Austrian troops as Marie Theresa was more than prepared to fight for her land and titles (or those she wanted for her husband). Bavaria might have remained an Austrian possession were it not for the intervention of King Frederick the Great of Prussia. Maria Theresa managed to have Francis I elected emperor in 1745 and he was co-regent of her hereditary dominions but it was really Maria Theresa who ruled, which was well enough because she was pretty darn good at it, being a principled, decisive, religious and all around great ruler. Emperor Francis mostly “ruled” from behind a desk doing paperwork and though he was not a faithful husband he still did his part to secure the Hapsburg-Lorraine succession by fathering sixteen children with Maria Theresa, among them two future emperors and an ill-fated future Queen of France. He died in 1765, some time before his wife.

Emperor Joseph II: Known as the “People’s Emperor”, Joseph II will always be remembered as one of the “Enlightened Despots”. His personality changed after the death of his beloved first wife, making him more cold and aloof. He tried to apply reason to government which earned him friends and enemies alike. At home and abroad his desire was to make Austria a great power, centralize government and unify his diverse domains. His public popularity came for his emancipation of the serfs, granting of religious freedom (up to a point) and providing social welfare for the poor. Yet, he was also a very authoritarian man and a very absolutist monarch who would tolerate no opposition. His efforts to place the Catholic Church under state control earned him many lasting enemies among the clerical faction and Church histories to this day often speak more harshly of Joseph II than predecessors who actually made war on the Pope or never practiced their religion at all. To unify his people he tried to make German the official language of all Hapsburg lands, which did not go over well, and he tried to make the House of Hapsburg supreme in Germany, going to war with Frederick the Great of Prussia in the process. He also fought less consequential wars against the Turks and Hungarian rebels, which were practically family traditions. He planned a rescue operation to save his sister, Queen Marie Antoinette from the French Revolution but his offer was refused by the brave royal couple who were reluctant to leave (at least at that stage). A patron of the arts, particularly music, Joseph II was called the “Musical King” and is most remembered now for his commissioning of work from Mozart. He died in 1790 adored by the lowest but hated by many for his interference in religion and Germanization policy. Still, he set the example which almost all subsequent Hapsburg Emperors tried to emulate.

Emperor Leopold II: Succeeding his elder brother, Leopold II had to put down rebellions from Belgium to Hungary because of the unpopular policies of his brother and he repealed the most provocative of these but maintained the majority of them. He too was a proponent of “enlightened” absolute monarchy and had originally been trained for the priesthood. He ruled as Grand Duke of Tuscany where his aloof nature made him less than popular, despite abolishing the death penalty and instituting public health programs. As Emperor, he was cold and calculating, refusing aid to French royalists and preferring to try to eliminate Prussia as a rival in Germany than punishing republican France. He also refused to allow any Papal Bulls read in his territory without first approving of the document. Still, the treatment of his sister and brother-in-law stirred his fury as an absolute monarch and he agreed to make common cause with the other Crowned Heads of Europe to stop the spread of republicanism. He died before any concerted action could be taken in 1792 at the age of only 44. Whereas his brother Joe had been much more single-minded and uncompromising, Kaiser Leo II was always prepared to keep flexible and to always consider the “politics” of any given situation. Unlike his brother, he certainly did his part to secure the succession, having sixteen children just like his own parents did. Overall, Emperor Leopold II might not have been the sort of monarch to be widely admired but he was probably the right man for the job at that time.

Emperor Francis II/I: The last Holy Roman (German) Emperor and the first Emperor of Austria, Francis succeeded his father after being raised in extremely strict fashion by his uncle Emperor Joseph II whom he nonetheless idolized. Emperor Francis can be a hard man to understand. He seemed not to really care that his aunt was guillotined by revolutionaries and yet the honor of his house was of paramount importance to him. His empire was well known for its vast network of spies and powerful secret police, yet he was an approachable monarch who always made time for any of his subjects who wished to speak with him. Most of his reign was dominated by the war with Napoleonic France and he was Napoleon’s most intractable enemy on the continent. When Napoleon became so successful that he determined to make himself emperor, Francis II feared that he might be able to so dominate Germany as to win election so he dissolved the Holy Roman Empire and thenceforth ruled as Emperor Francis I of Austria. It was a bitter blow to have to cede territory to France and worse still to give his own daughter to Napoleon in marriage. However, he saw the Austrian Empire through the crisis and by his own very conservative nature, helped ensure that the peace was practical and based on a respect for traditional authority. In the end, his prestige also allowed the Austrian Emperors to become the hereditary presidents of the German Confederation. He was a good, solid emperor and though sometimes accused of being paranoid and tyrannical, the fact is that he had reason to be and the steps he took prevented Austria from falling apart due to radical nationalism. He died in 1835.

Emperor Ferdinand I: Although often dismissed, I have a bit of a soft spot for Kaiser Ferdinand, sometimes known as “Ferdinand the Good”. True, he was handicapped in a number of ways and suffered from very severe epilepsy, however, he was not as totally incompetent as some seem to think. He could speak several different languages, could write very well and was a considerate and very religious man. Married to the Italian Princess Maria Anna of Savoy, she was a devoted wife who took good care of her husband, really being more of a nurse than a traditional wife but he loved and appreciated her for her attentiveness in what was really a sacrifice for her. If all had remained calm and tranquil, it might have been possible for Ferdinand I to remain on the throne with considerable help but that all changed with the outbreak of the Revolutions of 1848. He realized that he was not up to the task and the best thing to do would be to abdicate in favor of someone young and fit who could handle the situation. So he did, handing power over to his nephew after which he retired to Prague and lived quietly the rest of his life. While there, he also proved to be a help to the local economy and actually proved to be quite an astute businessman, amassing a fortune that supported the family for the rest of the Hapsburg reign. He died in 1875.

Emperor Francis Joseph I: One of the longest ruling monarchs in modern European history, the events of the reign of Francis Joseph would be too numerous to mention. He started out by suppressing revolutionaries and remained ever vigilant to threat of rebellion thereafter. Despite rising ethnic unrest, Francis Joseph made the Austrian Empire a workable power with growing industry and a scientific and artistic community that was second to none. However, in 1859 he acted rashly in allowing himself to be provoked into war with France and Sardinia in northern Italy, losing Lombardy in the process and a short time later went to war with Denmark alongside the other German states. The aftermath of this led to a short, disastrous war with Prussia which saw Austria removed from German affairs in 1864. Any attempt at a revival was dashed by the continuing danger of rebellion in Hungary which Emperor Francis Joseph tried to put to rest by (rather reluctantly) agreeing to the Compromise of 1867 which saw the Austrian Empire become the “Dual-Monarchy” of Austria-Hungary with each having separate and co-equal governments. In 1882 he signed on to the Triple Alliance, a monarchist defense pact, with the German Empire and the Kingdom of Italy. In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia which angered Serbia and Russia (as well as Italy since they did not receive the territorial compensations they had been promised) and pan-Slavism, led by Serbia and backed up by Russia would become the dominant concern of the latter years of Francis Joseph’s reign. He was always a dutiful monarch and he learned from experience. He also became more sincerely religious as he aged, possibly because of the many tragedies he faced in his private life, though he was still not above using the imperial veto to influence papal elections. Holding on to what he had been given became his primary concern and the strength and preservation of the monarchy was never far from his thoughts. When World War I came, he probably viewed some sort of showdown with Serbia as inevitable but he was still reluctant and had to be lied to before actually giving the order to go to war. Too old, by that time, to play much of a part, he died in 1916.

Emperor Charles I: Known as the “Peace Emperor”, it is rather illustrative of his life that this nickname was due to intentions rather than actual achievements. He was thrust into the position of heir to the throne when Archduke Francis Ferdinand was shot in 1914 but already displayed admirable qualities that would have served him well as monarch. He was an accomplished soldier, known for his concern for the welfare of his troops, his devotion to his wife and family and his deep faith. When the Pope called for a peace without victors, only Charles and the King of the Belgians took it seriously and made the attempt. Unfortunately, it was a rather naïve and futile gesture that almost brought about the early destruction of Austria-Hungary. His intentions were noble and his virtue was far above his contemporaries but it was simply beyond the realm of possibility that the Allies would have agreed to such a proposal at that stage and even more ludicrous to think they would have kept his secret when making the attempt public proved so helpful to the Allied cause. The Germans were furious at such a betrayal and made plans to invade and occupy Austria-Hungary at a moment’s notice (it would not have been dissimilar to what happened to Italy in 1943). From that point, Austria-Hungary was more like Germany’s prisoner than Germany’s ally and Emperor Charles had little choice but to see things through to the end. He dismissed the old army leadership and took command himself while also proposing new domestic plans in an effort to regain the loyalty of the various ethnic minorities. However, it was to no avail and the Allies had already agreed to the post-war dismemberment of Austria-Hungary in any event. After a final, crushing blow in 1918 the empire simply collapsed in on itself and Emperor Charles was forced to relinquish power and go into exile. However, he did not abdicate as he viewed the monarchy as a sacred trust that he could not abandon. In 1921 he tried twice to regain his throne as King of Hungary but was blocked by the ruling regent. He died in Portugal a year later at the age of only 34. In 2004 Charles, the last Hapsburg Emperor, was formally beatified by Pope John Paul II. He was a saintly man and, like a number of “last” monarchs, too good for his own good in a number of ways.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

...continued from Part IEmperor Matthias: Put in charge of Hungary by his brother, Matthias aligned with the Protestant rebels, gained control of more disaffected territories and finally forced Rudolf from power. In 1612 he was elected Emperor but the methods he had used to gain power soon caused him problems. He had to deal with rebellious forces in Hungary, Slavonia, Croatia as those who he had granted concessions to before demanded more from him. His hope was to reconcile the Catholics and Protestants but the Protestants did not want to be reconciled, nor did the more zealous Catholics of the House of Hapsburg who wanted to wipe out Protestantism, an idea which even Charles V had deemed impractical. Poor Matthias was, in a way, hoisted on his own petard. He had inadvertently stirred up ambitions among the rebellious to unseat his ineffective brother only to see his own reign crippled by divisions and rebellion. His brother, Archduke Rudolf III of Austria, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, was one of the leaders in this area and succeeded in gaining power as Emperor Matthias grew old and feeble. He died in 1619 and any thought of reconciliation died with him.

Emperor Ferdinand II: One thing was certainly clear when Ferdinand II was elected Emperor in 1619; any concessions to Protestantism would be stopped. Kaiser Ferdinand II was a staunch, devout Catholic, Jesuit-educated and a man who wished to see Catholicism restored throughout Germany. Religious liberty was not his thing and he was not big on the idea of sharing power with the nobility either and he wasted no time in tearing up the agreements of his predecessors and enforcing an imperial smack-down on the Protestants in his territory. The Bohemians revolted first, declared Ferdinand deposed and tried to replace him but he still managed to be elected emperor first and soon fighting broke out that spread quickly. This was the start of the Thirty Years War as Catholics and Protestants struggled for the domination of Germany and really all of Central Europe. The forces of Kaiser Ferdinand seemed to always be successful only to have a new enemy arise to snatch final victory from their grasp. At White Mountain the Catholic imperial forces led by the Belgian general Tilly were victorious over the Protestants in Bohemia but then Denmark got involved. Spain came to help Austria and under Wallenstein the imperial forces were victorious again. But, then Sweden got involved and King Gustavus Adolphus dealt the Catholics a devastating blow. Tilly was defeated, Wallenstein was recalled and finally the Swedes were checked with the death of their King. However, just as Ferdinand II was about to declare victory, France intervened and in 1637 Emperor Ferdinand II died and both sides were exhausted.

Emperor Ferdinand III: Under his father, Ferdinand III has taken command of the imperial army and won a smashing victory over the Swedes, proving himself to be a capable commander. It was left to him to see the Thirty Years War brought to an end, not with the victory he had hoped but with a negotiated peace. The only thing that was really settled was that nothing was going to be settled and Germany would remain religiously divided between the Catholics and Protestants. It also changed the nature of the (German) Empire for whereas his predecessors like his father Ferdinand II, Ferdinand I and Maximilian I had tried to centralize power, Ferdinand III was obliged to do the opposite. In order to gain more support against the Swedes and then the French, he conceded much greater local autonomy to the various German rulers so that, once again, the empire existed more on paper than in reality. It became more of an idea and less of an actual pan-German empire. But, it was a matter of necessity for Ferdinand III and he did his best to stay strong and keep up the fight, even after the official peace, by helping Spain against France in Italy and helping the Catholic Poles against Sweden. However, it would be wrong to expect too much from the reign of Ferdinand III as the whole Hapsburg realm was exhausted by the Thirty Years War and the whole of Germany was in ruins and would be a long, long time in recovery. He did the best he could under such circumstances and should be appreciated for that.

Emperor Leopold I: Fortunately, Hapsburg fortunes turned around after the election in 1658 of Emperor Leopold I, though it was due in large part to a man who was not a Hapsburg and not even a German-Austrian but a rather frail, French-born Italian by the name of Prince Eugene of Savoy who happened to be one of the greatest captains in military history. Leopold I was a very learned man, conservative, a great lover of music as well as being devoutly religious. All in all, a fine combination. Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia rallied to him and there was a conflict with Sweden but the great rivals of his reign would be Turkey and Louis XIV of France. The Turks were first dealt with thanks to another brilliant general, the Italian Field Marshal Raimondo Montecuccoli. Next was Louis XIV of France who was blocked by the Prince of Orange who then managed a major coup in becoming King William III of England, Scotland and Ireland. He also had to deal with a rebellion in Hungary led by Protestant nobles who disliked Leopold’s efforts to enforce Catholic uniformity. This was used as a pretext by the Turks to launch a major invasion of Central Europe resulting in the attack on Vienna which was turned back thanks to the timely arrival of the Poles under King John Sobieski. Prince Eugene followed up with more victories over the Turks, pushing them out of Hungary and further south. He would go on to more fame in the War of Spanish Succession against France. Leopold I would not live to see the end of it but he had shown good sense, picked good commanders, consolidated power for his house and supported the Church. He was very intelligent and smart enough to know to leave military matters in the hands of those best suited for it while he focused on music, religion and government. A good man and a good emperor, he died in 1705.

Emperor Joseph I: Not much is usually said about Joseph I who suffered from bad timing as an emperor. He started out overseeing events already set in motion by his father and then died before seeing the conclusion of his own plans. However, he certainly had plans, the foremost of which was the establishment of Austria as a great power. He carried on with the War of Spanish Succession in the hope of seeing the Hapsburgs maintained on the throne of Spain which, in the end, did not happen though thanks to Prince Eugene of Savoy he did gain a commanding position in Italy. Considered a reformer in his youth, he was not a radical but did enact some needed changes in the Hapsburg government and he did manage to bring order to the chronically chaotic state of the Austrian economy. His efforts to dominate Italy brought him to the brink of war with the Pope (not an unusual occurrence) but he was obliged to make peace when rebellion broke out in Hungary (also not an unusual occurrence). Once again, Hungarian rebels aligned with the Turks and Joseph I was obliged to roll back some of the power gained by the imperial monarchy in order to win the support necessary to pacify Hungary and keep the Turks from getting any big ideas. Although not often mentioned, it was also Emperor Joseph I who got the ball rolling on the Pragmatic Sanction to secure the hereditary succession of the lands of Austria. He died, his work not yet finished, in 1711.

Emperor Charles VI: What potential and what a waste! Emperor Charles VI often seems left out of history as little more than a prelude to the reign of his daughter. This is somewhat understandable given that much of his early life was spent more like a pretender to a crown he never achieved. It was his overriding goal in life to become the King of Spain and he did live in the country for a time, mostly ruling over Catalonia and the British and Portuguese supported his bid for the throne. However, despite many victories, the war did not end the way Charles wanted. When Joseph I died he went back to Austria to be elected emperor and the British suddenly dropped their support for him. They did not want to see French power expanded but nor did they wish to see the same monarch ruling over both Spain and Austria. He married but had only daughters and became obsessed with securing the succession for his daughter, Maria Theresa, by issuing the Pragmatic Sanction and trying to get all the major powers to recognize it. Although not often recognized, Charles VI was quite an accomplished emperor. He defeated the Turks and gained the Banat for Hungary as well as taking Serbia and some other territories. He consolidated the Hapsburg position in Italy by trading Sardinia for Sicily with the House of Savoy and set Austria out on what might have been the start of a colonial foreign policy by founding a trading company for the West Indies. However, he emptied the Austrian treasury trying to bribe everyone in recognizing the Pragmatic Sanction as well as granting other concessions (Britain demanded he step back from trying colonialism). It was not always money well spent as most powers ended up adhering to or rejecting it as their own national interest dictated. He died in 1740.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Emperor Frederick III: Known as “Frederick the Peaceful”, Frederick III was the first Hapsburg to be elected Holy Roman Emperor and the last to be crowned by the Pope in the city of Rome in 1452. Known as an aloof, distant sort of man with a tendency to be indecisive, Pope Pius II sardonically said that he wished to “conquer the world while remaining seated”. Still, it seems to have worked for him and some have a tendency to unjustly dismiss Frederick III. He was not so much slow as methodical, not so much unimaginative as cautious, careful, sober and realistic. He negotiated a concordat with the Pope that governed Hapsburg Church-State relations for nearly four hundred years and his patience and determination allowed him to triumph over seemingly insurmountable obstacles. His brother rebelled against him and defeated him at every turn, yet Frederick III persevered and maintained himself on the throne. He failed to defeat the Hungarians, who won numerous victories over his forces, yet he survived and did manage to pull off a real long-term victory over Burgundy, securing an advantageous marriage for his son and the inheritance of that choice piece of real-estate. He died in 1493.

Emperor Maximilian I: One of the great ones, Kaiser Max is the real-life reason behind the famous saying, ‘Others make war, but thou, oh happy Austria, only marries’. His reign as Emperor dates from 1508 but he had been in charge of the Hapsburg dynasty for much longer. He was Duke of Burgundy thanks to the marriage contract won at gunpoint by his father and so from 1477 he was already ruler of a large slice of France and the Low Countries. When King Louis XI of France tried to take Burgundy from him, Max went to war and sent the French packing. He fought the French again in the Italian Wars and seized the Tyrol when he was asked to settle a dispute between the Tyrolese and the Bavarians. Perhaps most significantly, he married his son, Philip the Handsome, to Juana of Castile, daughter of Fernando and Isabella, thus securing Spain for the House of Hapsburg. He tried to make the Holy Roman Empire into a more unitary state and to use matrimonial alliances to gain mastery over France but was less successful in those endeavors. He also lost the Hapsburg ancestral lands to Switzerland but, the foundations he laid ended up bringing about a Hapsburg empire second to none in the western world.

Emperor Charles V: A giant in western history, Charles V was elected Emperor in 1519 but had already inherited a massive empire from Spain to the Low Countries to Austria itself. A sincerely religious man but a worldly and practical one as well, it is no understatement to say that Emperor Charles V saved Christendom on more than one occasion. During his eventful reign, he was almost constantly at war and was usually victorious. He defeated the Turks in the south, won a crushing victory over the French at Pavia in the west, broke the power of the Pope in Italy and subdued rebellious princes in Germany. A cosmopolitan man who almost defied classification, he was also in charge when Lutheranism first appeared and famously rebuked the monk at the Diet of Worms. He urged the Catholic Church to make reforms such as would make it easier for the Lutherans to get along with it but to no avail. He fought the Protestants for a time but ended by making peace with them so as to focus on external enemies. He was the last Emperor to actually be crowned, done in Bologna by Pope Clement VII after he had conquered Italy and forced the Pope’s submission. The Spanish empire expanded in the New World but so many conflicts did cause considerable financial problems in the future. Still, a giant historical figure who became something of a legend in Spain and Germany alike.

Emperor Ferdinand I: The brother of Charles V, he oversaw the German half of the Hapsburg empire, inheriting it when his brother abdicated while the Spanish half went to his nephew King Philip II. He also gained the thrones of Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia but a faction of the Hungarians allied with the Ottoman Sultan and rebelled against him. Vienna was besieged but in the end the Austrians were victorious. Ferdinand also negotiated the peace on behalf of his brother with the Protestants in Germany, allowing them to maintain their religion. He tried to centralize power and build-up an absolute monarchy in the Holy Roman Empire but had to deal with rebellions in Bohemia and Hungary. He sympathized with many of the positions of the Protestants but still supported the “Counter-Reformation” and invited the Jesuits into Vienna and Prague toward that end so the idea some have entertained that he was a crypto-Protestant is an exaggeration. He was a practical man who did his best to defend and consolidate the Hapsburg realm and to keep the Turks out of Central Europe. He died in 1564 after a reign that was difficult and not without setbacks but which had been successful when it counted most. Overall, an astute monarch.

Emperor Maximilian II: Elected the same year his father and predecessor died, Kaiser Max II at times seemed to be unsure whether he wanted to be a Catholic or a Protestant. He seemed so favorably inclined to the Lutherans that his father had to assure the Pope that Maximilian would not succeed him if he actually became a Protestant. As it happened, Max II remained at least nominally Catholic throughout his life. There were Protestant as well as Catholic electors and no law stipulating that an Emperor had to be a Catholic. In the end, he was on good terms with the Protestants and still elected Emperor as a Catholic with the Pope confirming his election. He then pushed for the Pope to accept Protestant practices such as doing away with clerical celibacy and giving communion in both kinds. When the Council of Trent issued its documents, he refused to have them published and tried to get his Spanish cousin to ease up on the Protestants in Holland. In the end, he angered the Catholics and still never managed to totally appease the Protestants and he was unable to take the remainder of Hungary back from the Turks. He died while trying to press his claim to the Kingdom of Poland in 1576. His reign was a rather well meaning mess that accomplished little.

Emperor Rudolf II: One of the more unusual Hapsburg emperors. Most regarded him as aloof, excessively formal and rather stiff. He was certainly reclusive and rather eccentric and not the most dutiful of monarchs. He never married so never produced an heir and delegated most of his daily tasks to others while he obsessed over machinery, astrology and alchemy (and religious people should remember when being lectured by modern scientists that astrology and alchemy were at one time considered solid, scientific “fact”). He was tolerant towards Protestants and Jews and was never really a serious, practicing Catholic but his actual state of mind became harder to determine and more erratic. He was prone to fits of depression and became almost obsessive in his fascination with alchemy. He naively tried to remain neutral in the growing tensions between Catholics and Protestants and tried to bring everyone together for a war against the Ottoman Turks but it got him nowhere and soon Hungary was in rebellion again. In Bohemia he granted concessions to the Protestants but they only demanded more and joined forces with the Hungarians to force Rudolf from power. He died in 1612 powerless and possibly mad.

Monday, July 21, 2014

There were lots of sporting events and visits for the British royals last week. Prince Harry won big at polo and joined his big brother in hosting a cricket match. HM the Queen hosted a special reception for enterprise award winners, the Duchess of Cambridge attending a cooking class and of course little Prince George has been in the news a great deal concerning his upcoming birthday. The little Prince is said to be, “charging around and opening doors” now, so no doubt he is keeping his parents on their toes. The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall visited Devon and Cornwall, Prince William visited Coventry War Memorial Park and Prince Michael of Kent spoke out about his struggle with cancer. The Queen also made a visit to the Reading Railway Station. Elsewhere in northern Europe, a new poll found that a majority of Danes favor ending the allowance to Princess Alexandra, ex-wife of Prince Joachim, both of whom have since remarried. This is not terribly surprising given that, while she is not unpopular, she is not really seen as a member of the Royal Family anymore and does do much in the way of official engagements. In Sweden the Royal Family was out to celebrate the birthday of Crown Princess Victoria on July 14 who turned 37. Congratulations to her.

Further south on the continent, King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima signed a book of condolences for the victims of the Malaysian airliner that was shot down over eastern Ukraine. Dutch nationals made up the largest number of the victims. Prevailing opinion has been that the aircraft was shot down by pro-Russian separatists and it will be revealing to see how The Netherlands will handle this given that they were among the most opposed, in the past, to taking economic action against Russia over events in the Ukraine. Moving further south, TM King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain paid an official visit to the North African Kingdom of Morocco last week where they met with King Mohammed VI and Princess Lalla Salma over two days. Upon returning home, the King and Queen had a night off and went to the movies but then it was back to business and full dress uniform for the King who received the credentials of a number of foreign ambassadors.

In the diverse lands of ‘Eternal Asia’ the Crown Prince of Dubai took a video of the recent “super moon” that went viral on this here internet, the Emir of Qatar went to Turkey to meet with the President and PM, calling for talks in an effort to, let us be frank, end his pariah status with the rest of the Arab royal community. He also issued prisoner pardons for Ramadan but at last report there was no word of who was included. Usually the Ramadan pardons are given out to foreign workers in Qatar. Crown Prince Paras Shah of Nepal remains in custody in Thailand after being arrested for marijuana possession (not the first time). He has been living in Thailand with his girlfriend since splitting with his wife in Singapore (his wife comes from an Indian princely family and has returned to Nepal with their children). In Cambodia, the ashes of the late King-Father Norodom Sihanouk were laid to rest in the Silver Pagoda following a lavish procession through Phnom Penh last Saturday. Crowds of people gathered, many expressing hopes that the soul of the late monarch would help Cambodia and bring the political parties together. In Malaysia (aside from this latest tragedy for their airlines) the Sultan of Selangor had some harsh words for an elected official of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party after he suggested that the Islamic Religious Council should have its executive powers removed. The Sultan called the politician “rude” and “ignorant” and suggested that he speak more carefully in the future. And, finally, last Saturday the Crown Princess of Tonga, wife of Crown Prince Tupouto ‘a ‘Ulukalala, gave birth to a daughter, their second child, named Princess Halaaevalu Mata’aho. Congratulations to the proud parents.

This past week, it should be obvious, I didn’t get a great deal of “royal” news because other events dominated the news cycle with a ground war in the Middle East and a jet liner being shot down over Ukraine. Some people have asked me about those issues and I really don’t have much to say about either one. The fighting in Gaza seems pretty ‘cut and dry’ and as for Ukraine, my position hasn’t changed on that from what it was in the beginning. There will be a lot of bluster and stern words but the bottom line is that, other than the Ukrainians themselves, no one but Russia is willing to fight over this. Western Europe doesn’t want to challenge Russia nor do most people in the United States and I am firmly in the majority on that one. It doesn’t involve American interests or security, the USA doesn’t have a good track record in foreign policy from my standpoint and I don’t want to see anymore American forces be asked to fight and die and get their legs blown off for countries that despise them. We’re talking about a bunch of governments that I do not approve of on either side, it is not the state of affairs I would prefer nor is that currently within the realm of possibility. As far as who is to blame for this, it seems clear to me that the pro-Russian rebels shot it down but that they didn’t know exactly what they were shooting down and I don’t think Putin had anything to do with it as he’s not intensely stupid and would know that such an act would only make things more problematic for him. There are people who should be outraged over it, but they don’t seem to be, at least not enough to do anything about it and, frankly, if they don’t care I see no reason why America should. And that’s all I have to say about that.

Friday, July 18, 2014

One of the things that often frustrates me is the people who pose questions with the perceived goal of looking for an excuse to be disloyal. They come up with all sorts of hypothetical situations, asking if, under these certain circumstances, would rebellion be justified? My usual answer is “no” as, for me, the fundamental basis of loyalty to monarchs is simple, being based on religious conviction. “My son, fear the Lord and the King: and have nothing to do with detractors (rebels)”, Proverbs 24:21. That’s simple enough and good enough for me. Without doing intensive research, I was unable to come up with any Scriptural justification for rebellion. Throughout the Bible, it doesn’t happen much, the most prominent rebellion that comes to mind is that of the Maccabees which was a rebellion against a foreign conqueror, the Seleucid Empire which was one of the successor states of the “world” dominion of Alexander the Great. In the Christian era, people were told to “render unto Caesar”, to “fear God and honor the Emperor” and to obey “not only the good and the gentle but also the harsh”. And, as we know from history, even in the worst periods of immorality and even persecution, there were no massive Christian rebellions. On the contrary, Christians were sent to their deaths protesting their loyalty with the usual phrase, “Hail Caesar, Emperor of Rome, we who are about to die salute you”.

This has occupied my thoughts as of late because of a growing concern that the time may be approaching (or even near upon us), in my country at least, where the issue becomes pressing as to whether one can morally pay taxes and submit to a government that is doing immoral things. Certainly, one can imagine that when Jesus Christ said, “render unto Caesar” that some of that money was going to further causes the audience being addressed would have considered immoral. The Caesar at that time was the Emperor Tiberius who went rather off the deep-end morally at the end of his life, according to most accounts, but even at best we can imagine that tax money would be spent on things like sponsoring pagan Roman temples which the Jewish leaders Jesus was addressing would have surely denounced as idolatry. Yet, the command was to pay your taxes and be loyal to the Emperor. Does this apply to us today in the same way? It seems to me that an answer might be dependent on whether you live in a republic or not or even as to what sort of monarchy you live in. Pondering the issue has made me wonder (not much, because the answer seems obvious) whether or not people realize how morally hazardous a republic can be. When considering what the difference would be between the people, taxes, laws and overall situation of those in the time of Christ versus those here and now the answer I came up with has, at its heart, the issue of sovereignty.

This is an opinion piece and others may disagree, but these are simply my thoughts for your consideration. It seems to me that one reason for the lack of rebellions or authorization for rebellions in the old days (very old days) is because people were not expected to sit in judgment of their superiors. For the Jews of the Old Testament, God was in charge and God picked who would be king over them. They were to be loyal to that King who was responsible to God for his actions and if he acted wrongly or misruled his people it was God that would deal with him. This was basically stated in the covenant God made with King David, establishing his “divine right” to rule God’s people. God said that if the descendants of King David ruled badly, He would punish them but that their divine right would never be taken away for the sake of King David, the man after God’s own heart. The people were to obey so long as the authorities did not demand them to act contrary to the law of God and even then, as we see in cases such as that of Daniel, the response was disobedience but not disloyalty or rebellion. God was considered to be the master of kings and princes and the one who directed the fate of the nations. So, when Israel and Judah were conquered by the Romans, they considered that was the will of God and as their king submitted so too did they. Basically, how the Emperor behaved was God’s problem to deal with and not their’s.

That may sound flippant but the underlying point is extremely serious because today is not at all the same in most republics and even some monarchies. The point is that, in the past, when the government did something wrong, the King and the King alone was responsible to God for it. Today, where I live and probably a majority of those reading this as well, it is “we” who are responsible when the government does something wrong and the reason is sovereignty. Let us take the example of the United States, a republic familiar to all. Before independence, King George III was the sovereign, holding sovereignty over what would become the original United States of America. Although one could substitute the word “Parliament” after 1688, according to the letter of the law, George III was King “by the Grace of God”. Parliament passed laws in the name of the King, who gave assent or vetoed them as he pleased (though George III never vetoed anything as most know) and he reigned by God’s grace because it was God who made him the sovereign of England, Scotland and Ireland and all their dependencies. Then, along comes the American War for Independence and the birth of the United States of America; a federal republic. Instead of an hereditary monarch, the United States would have a President, chosen by the Electoral College through the democratic process because the people said, in so many words, ‘we will have the leader we choose, not the leader God chooses for us’. But was the President then the sovereign of the United States? Perish the thought!

The President is certainly not the sovereign of America as it was stated very clearly from the outset that the United States was to be based on the principle of “popular sovereignty”. That means everyone is king which is the same thing as saying there is no king at all. Sovereignty is claimed by the collective and invested in the public at large as “we, the people”. Did anyone then or does anyone now realize what a truly terrible responsibility that represents? This is why, for example, if one were to commit a crime or, excuse me, if one were to be *unjustly accused* of committing a crime (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) north of the border in Her Britannic Majesty’s Dominion of Canada your case would be referred to as “The Crown versus Stickyfingers McGuilty” whereas in these United States, under the same circumstances, it would be, in federal cases, “The People of the United States versus Shiftyeyes O’Liar” because the sovereign is the basis of law and authority and in Canada that is Her Majesty the Queen, which is to say, “The Crown” of Canada while in the United States there is no sovereign but the collective sovereignty of “the people”. How many people recognize the moral ramifications of this? Likewise, in Britain, laws are enacted in the name of the Queen whereas in the United States, with popular sovereignty, they are enacted in the name of “the people”. Can everyone see the important difference and what this means?

In a country based on traditional authority, in which the monarch is sovereign, as was universally the case in the old days, this meant that if a bad law was enacted the sole responsibility fell on the shoulders of the monarch. However, by trying to take power into our own hands and claiming popular sovereignty, sticking with the illustration of America, it means that everyone is tainted, so to speak, by a bad law because everything that is done and every law that is passed is done so in the name of and by the authority of “we, the people”. This holds true even in the case of money and taxes. What did Jesus Christ first ask about the coin when questioned on paying taxes? He asked, who was pictured on that coin and the answer was, of course, Caesar as the profile of the Emperor appeared on all coins just as, again to bring it forward, the profile of Queen Elizabeth II appears on all the coins in a country like Canada. So, He said, “render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar”. Was this based solely on cosmetics? I don’t think so and such a thing could not be applied to the United States wherein coins feature the profiles of presidents long dead like Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Washington and Kennedy. We could hardly ‘render unto’ these men who are no longer alive, nor would it be right to do so because none of them were sovereigns.

The underlying point is that the currency Christ held up was a Roman coin backed by the authority of the Emperor. In the United States, the power to issue currency is reserved to the Congress, the representatives of, again, “we, the people”. That is then combined with the fact that the power of the purse is reserved to the people’s elected representatives and that means that the general public is, to some degree, responsible for all that is done with it. Power and responsibility is, after all, a two-way street even if it may be comfortable to ignore the fact. By demanding that, “we, the people” should all be sovereign, that we should all collectively hold power and authority, we are then all collectively responsible for all that comes as a result of this. What is more revealing, at least to me, is that everyone seems to realize this when it is convenient to their cause. For example, many people, certainly in America, will have heard of the anti-war campaign “Not In My Name”. It was a very widely used slogan in the opposition to the Iraq War and has been used by numerous causes around the world, most of them of very leftist origins. These same people, however, claim to be totally oblivious to this concept when traditional Christians oppose “gay marriage”. Most Christians don’t give a toss what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes but what they do object to is the idea of the government, acting in their name, saying something in law which they believe is untrue. Thanks to collective sovereignty, it is forcing traditional Christians to make liars of themselves.

This hardly seems fair to those who did everything possible to stop perceived wrongs done by their government. They may have voted, participated in debates, perhaps even held public protests but, fair or not, “we” asked for this situation. In fact, “we” demanded it and shed blood to achieve it. To make matters even more unfair, it is not as though “the people” actually rule, ever have or ever will but the people went along, the people participated or at least submitted to this and the political leaders of the revolutions of the world made it sound so empowering when they said, “We will hold power, but it will be in your name” because there is no higher power than “the people”. This grand sounding ideal, however, was actually a sort of suicide pact which enables all to be tainted by the actions of 51% of their number, sometimes even less. If we are going to say that power comes from the people and not from God then it is the people who are responsible to God for all that their fellow members of the collective do. In a traditional monarchy, if the King misruled, the King would die and go to Hell. With popular sovereignty, everyone risks being dragged down to the infernal regions by the most politically successful. We used to have a monarch to blame. Now, we have only ourselves.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Known as the personification of the problems in the Catholic Church of his time, Cardinal Wolsey was worldly, wealthy and ambitious. Yet, like most figures of the Renaissance or any period in history Wolsey had his good points as well as his failings. He rose to prominence during the reign of King Henry VII, founder of the Tudor dynasty and was a major figure at court as well as acting as an envoy to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian. When Henry VIII came to the throne Wolsey's star was to rise even higher, and the young king had complete trust in the clever churchman. One way this came about was mutual ambition. Henry VIII wanted power and glory and would abide no one who tried to discourage him. Wolsey realized this and was always eager to encourage the King's ambition as a way of realizing his own.

It was a policy that worked as in 1514 Wolsey was given the prestigious position of Archbishop of York. In September the following year he was elevated to the rank of Cardinal and only one month later Henry VIII made him Lord Chancellor of England. This was the apex of his career, holding the most powerful office in the kingdom and the red hat of a Prince of the Church. It was quite a rise from someone who had been born the son of a butcher. For some time their relationship was good. The King was obsessed with wars and jousts and pageantry and had no interest in the work of administration, which was therefore left in Cardinal Wolsey's capable hands. Even his worst enemy could not deny that Wolsey was committed, hard working and extremely good at his job.

Problems did not arise until that pivotal moment in English history when King Henry VIII fell for the seductions of Ann Boleyn and became determined to put away his lawful wife Queen Catherine of Aragon. Cardinal Wolsey, ever devoted to the King, did his best to solve the problem but knew that the Pope would refuse. He earned the wrath of Ann Boleyn who tried to turn Henry against him, and other than the King, Wolsey had few friends. His rise from humble origins disturbed the aristocracy, and many envied his extreme wealth, it often being said that he lived even more luxuriously than the King himself. Wolsey was also the perfect illustration of all the problems in the Church that devoted men like St Thomas More were demanding be corrected. He became very fat, extracted fees from those given posts in the Church, was absent from his see in York, had fathered illegitimate children and had done little to strop the spread of Lutheranism/Protestantism in England. When he failed to gain the annulment Henry wanted some accused him of purposely not trying hard enough because of an ambition to be elected Pope.

Because Queen Catherine was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and Cardinal Wolsey was pushing a foreign policy of closeness with France, he would have liked nothing better than to see the Queen put away. However, he did not approve of Henry marrying Ann Boleyn, who it seemed to many had cast a spell over the King and was driving him to make revolutionary changes in the kingdom simply to satisfy his lust. When the Cardinal could not get a swift judgment in Henry's favor, the king grew impatient and his enemies among the nobility and especially Ann Boleyn, closed in on Wolsey. He was dismissed as Lord Chancellor, stripped of his role as Papal legate, deprived of all offices save the archbishopric of York and was later forced to sign over all of his possessions to the King.

Later, when it was found that Wolsey had not been at fault for the king not obtaining his divorce, he was pardoned and returned to York to try to act as the shepherd he was supposed to have been. However, he had powerful enemies that would not relent and they produced forged documents claiming that the Cardinal had been in secret negotiations with the King of France and demanded that he be tried for high treason. When the King's officers came to arrest him he famously said, "Master Kingston, I see the matter against me now it is framed; but if I had served God as diligently as I have done the King He would not have given me over in my gray hairs". Cardinal Wolsey, however, was never tried or executed for the charges against him as he died before the matter could be concluded on November 29, 1530.